1 / 21

CurCom Phase II

CurCom Phase II. Phase II. Overview 3-year plan Control mechanism 3 plans … Discussion Final comments Distribution of ballots to vote on “control mechanism” plan. Phase II. 3-Year Plan Freshman Year Segments I & II CINE102 (maybe …) Sophomore Year Segments I & II

zariel
Télécharger la présentation

CurCom Phase II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CurComPhase II

  2. Phase II • Overview • 3-year plan • Control mechanism • 3 plans … • Discussion • Final comments • Distribution of ballots to vote on “control mechanism” plan

  3. Phase II • 3-Year Plan • Freshman Year • Segments I & II • CINE102 (maybe …) • Sophomore Year • Segments I & II • CINE200/202 [204] • CINE 200 – Introduction to Cinema Studies • CINE 202 – Introduction to Filmmaking • CINE204 – One unit section taught in conjunction w/202 • CINE 30X Induction into Emphases (more on this in a few minutes …)? • Junior Year • Foundation course • Intermediate courses in the student’s emphasis • GWAR • Senior Year • Advanced courses in the student’s emphasis • Major elective(s)

  4. Phase II • 3-Year Plan • Reducing pressure on the major: • Lower division units can count toward the major • CINE102 (3 units)? • CINE200 (3 units) • CINE202/04 (4 units) • TOTAL UNITS = 10 • We can lower the units required in the major to as low as 39 • Listed “electives” are place-holders in following chart (see next slide): • Encourage and/or mandate x-number of units to be taken outside an emphasis • Keep current policy of “up to 12 upper division units can be taken outside the major with an advisor’s approval.”

  5. Phase II • Control mechanism • Portfolio Reviews • CINE 30X – a one unit course • A combination of these …

  6. Phase II • CINE 30X • Developed in consultation with • Helen Goldsmith Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies • Jo Volkert Associate Vice President of Enrollment Management • Advised to list as upper division course to preclude articulation • PYS303 The Major and the Profession • Administered online • Course content and function: • Introduction to the Emphases • Help students make more informed choices • Built-in Advising module • Application to Emphases (perhaps portfolio submissions) • Test (effectively a formalized version of the Exemption Exam) • CR/NC • We can “curve” the course – i.e., what constitutes “CR” • Does not negatively impact GPA if a student doesn’t succeed • Repeatable

  7. Phase II • CINE 30X (continued …) • Test (effectively a formalized version of the Exemption Exam) • Based on • The Filmmaker’s Handbook • Film Art • Domestic students: • CINE200/202 prepared students for the course • Transfer students • Non-articulating students • Fundamental elements of Studies and Production • For example: the difference between a long shot and long take; a close-up and medium shot; deep space and depth of field. • Schedule for the end of the Semester (and at the beginning?)

  8. Phase II • CINE 30X (continued …) • Additional benefits • Reduces pressure on CINE200/202 • Recalibrate to a more qualitative approach • Less pressure on the instructor to “fail” students • less urgent to have a full-time faculty person teaching CINE200/202 • Teaching potential for Graduate Students in CINE200/202 (?)

  9. Phase II: Overview of options • The “entry exam” and the portfolio review are not mutually exclusive alternatives. • The exam and the portfolio review serve different functions. • The portfolio review distributes students among emphases. • The exam limits entry into the major. • The adoption of emphases may make a portfolio review necessary. It may or may not also eliminate the need for an exam.

  10. Phase II Assumptions about Distribution of Students Among Emphases • Production: 120 Upper Division / 60 a Year • Screenwriting: 90 Upper Division / 45 a Year • Animation: 60 Upper Division / 30 a Year • Media Cultures(?): 130 Upper Division / 65 a Year

  11. Phase II Implications of Assumptions • Given these assumptions, we will need a mechanism for distributing students among emphases, regardless of whether we have a gateway controlling entry into the major or not. • That mechanism could be a portfolio review, a lottery, or some other mechanism.

  12. Phase II. Portfolio review: • Content and criteria to be determined by the faculty, but could include work produced in sophomore level courses and the DARS. • Students would submit one portfolio for all areas of emphasis and list their choices in order of preference.

  13. Phase II Burden of review • The review would more or less replace the advanced production pool and the burden of administering it. • Could be spread among faculty members. • Some students would self select: knowing that they face a portfolio review at the end of the sophomore year, some students would choose not to enter the major.

  14. Phase II Controlling Entry Into The Major: A Question • Once we have instituted a mechanism for distributing students among emphases, what kind of “gateway,” if any, do we need?

  15. Phase IIThe Role of 200 and 202/204 • Students who are not ready to meet the demands of university level courses, will be identified by the requirement of earning a C or better in 200 and 202/04. • As a public university, do we have an obligation to educate all students who can pass this test of readiness?

  16. Alternatives to Entry Exam • All of the auxiliary functions of exam are better served elsewhere (i.e., introduction of emphases should happen in 200 & 202/204). • Similarly, advising should also be done during freshmen and sophomore years, not at end of sophomore year, when test is taken. • In fact, it is better NOT to build in auxiliary functions, so that we can drop the exam in the future if we feel it is not necessary.

  17. Weaknesses of Exam • If exam really tests such basic knowledge as difference between long take and long shot, will it be a useful gateway? (See sample test.) • If it tests ability of students to recall a wide range of technical knowledge in a given two hour time period, is it a valid measure of who will succeed in major? • We will have to offer accommodations to disabled students, including extra time, having the exam read to them, etc.

  18. Phase II:The necessity of an exam • The “numbers” problem has always been driven by the number of people to whom we can reasonably offer production classes and was not necessarily meant to keep weaker students out of the major. Now that we have an alternative method of achieving that goal, do we still need an entry exam? • The real challenge is to find better ways to communicate to students, parents, administrators and donors what all of the emphases and, most particular, a “Media and Culture” emphasis has to offer students.

  19. Phase II • Discussion …

  20. Phase II • Final comments • Distribution of ballots to vote on “control mechanism” plan • Need a more well defined path through the individual paths • Please consult with us …

More Related